In the context of a Motion for Summary Affirmance of a District Court decision, should lower courts follow the mandate of this Supreme Court - most recently reaffirmed in Tolan v. Cotton, 572 US, 134 S. Ct., 188 L Ed 2d 895, 2014 US LEXIS 3112 - which requires that "in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, 'the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor" - particularly when the evidence clearly supports the non-movant's position?

Did the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overstep its boundaries when it opined on the merits of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition prior to the issuance of the District Court's final decision, and within the context of an interlocutory appeal regarding release on bail; a proceeding which calls for using criteria similar to that used to deliberate on the grant a Certificate of Appealability?

Should the existence of multiple errors that support a 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition, particularly when several of those errors are structural in nature and merit automatic reversal, be considered sufficient to meet the "extraordinary circumstances" test used by courts to evaluate the applicability of release on bail pending a habeas appeal?

Whether lower courts should follow the Supreme Court's mandate in Tolan v. Cotton when ruling on a motion for summary affirmance